1. Field of Invention
The invention relates generally to the field of testing the condition of a computer or laptop and the components and/or peripherals thereof and includes an apparatus and method for achieving testing.
2. Description of the Related Art
Diagnosis of a faulty computer system can be a difficult process. The computer service technician is charged with identifying all the faults in a given system in quick and accurate fashion. Prior to the advent of the instant invention, the methods a technician may utilize to accomplish this task qualify as unsatisfactory. Presently, one method entails trial and error, replacing the various components of a PC with components that are known to work properly. This constitutes a cumbersome and time-consuming process that requires the technician to continually have on hand an inventory of tools and known-good parts.
Another method is to use a variety of computer testing tools, which are known in the art, to test all the various components/peripherals of the PC. Once again, to accomplish testing and repair in this manner, the technician must have on-hand a large inventory of tools, each designed to test a single PC component. Further, the technician must once again possess an inventory of known-good parts to replicate the function of components he finds to be faulty.
These methods become even more unsatisfactory when one considers how quickly technology changes. In order to stay abreast of the frequent and substantial changes in computing technology, the technician must always be purchasing new tools designed to test the functionality of such new devices and standards as are developed. Moreover, when these new devices and standards are developed, their adoption is never immediate, meaning that a technician will always be required to service a mix of old and new technologies. Thus, he does not simply discard his old tools in favor of the new, but rather adds the new tools to the old.
The result of these practices is a toolbox that is ever larger, ever more unwieldy, and ever more expensive. Of higher import, if a technician requires a large number of tools in his daily business, he must be proficient in the use of a large number of tools. As well, the technician must understand how to operate each of the tools in his kit, how they relate to one another, and how to interpret the various and extensive results and/or outputs of the tests. In short, there is a burden placed upon the technician to coordinate and understand the large and diverse number of data with which he is regularly presented.
Furthermore, the hardware diagnostic tools presently available and known in the art make no provision for the testing of a computer's software configuration. This constitutes a glaring weakness, since as present day computers evolve; the software configuration is at least as important to proper operation as the hardware. A service technician cannot be said to have made a complete diagnosis unless he has also tested a computer's software. (This is particularly true in light of the current epidemic of viruses and spyware; at present, nearly every Windows-based machine the service technician encounters will be infested with some form of “malware.”) Additionally, the service technician will frequently need to retrieve data stored on a malfunctioning computer, and no tool presently available makes any provision for such data retrieval due to the design of present systems.
A large number of diagnostic tools for individual PC components are known to the art, and in fact are in wide use in the industry. But there exists in the art no portable, universal, completely modular, expandable, and upgradeable device that integrates into one package all the tools a field service technician needs, tests each PC component in its native operating environment, replicates the function of faulty PC components, provides for the testing of a PC's software condition, and allows for the retrieval of data from a malfunctioning PC.
Furthermore, there are additional challenges when repairing a laptop PC, over and beyond those described above, because of the lack of standardization in mobile computing. Desktop PCs conform to rigid and detailed universal specifications, which are set by industry groups and therefore utilized industry-wide. Laptop PCs, however, have far fewer such standards. Individual manufacturers engineer their own components to their own specifications, and therefore there is a vast assortment of different components in use in the industry. Components vary wildly between different manufacturers, between different models produced by the same manufacturer, and even between different machines of the same make and model. The service technician, of course, is charged with repairing all of these machines, regardless of the differences in components. Therefore, he must have tools capable of diagnosing and repairing this large and sometimes baffling array of components.
The Portable Electronic Tester disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,662 to Delory, and incorporated herein by reference, while an important step in this direction, has only limited functionality for laptops. The desktop unit is designed to work with industry-standardized technologies, only those laptop components that are standardized can be diagnosed by the desktop unit. While the apparatus is capable of testing laptop hard drives, and the continuity of many important cables used in laptops. But it is incapable of diagnosing laptop power supplies, processors, memory, video output, or video display panels, as these components, which are standardized on desktop PCs, have no equivalent uniformity on laptops. There is a clear need, then, for a test device that is capable of diagnosing and repairing the diverse and sundry components it will encounter in the mobile computing environment.
But any solution will introduce a different problem. Because of this proliferation of different connector types for laptop components, the only practicable solutions will involve an assortment of adapters designed to interface the tool with the all the various connector types the tool's user will inevitably encounter in the field. With any collection of adapters, however, there is always the risk that adapters will be lost or broken, rendering the tool useless. Therefore, the device must also take measures to eliminate the risk of loss or breakage of these all-important adapters.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,805, issued to Krukovsky in 1999, discloses a tester for computer audio and video that is both portable and universal. But this device, while an obvious improvement to other testers known in the art, is limited in scope to the testing of video and audio. In a field service environment, it would be just one more tool in the service technician's kit, rather than an integrated diagnostic solution.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,775,192, issued to Harrington et al. in 2004, discloses a DRDRAM chip tester, which differs from other DRDRAM testers known to the art in that it can test a memory chip in a reduced power state. But this device requires the memory chips to be inserted in the device's test banks. In a field service environment, the end user would be obliged to remove the chips from the computer under test and place them in the device. This is an obvious inconvenience. But, far more importantly, this device tests only the memory chips themselves. In a field service environment, the service technician requires a memory test that tests the entire memory subsystem. It is imperative, therefore, that the field service technician test memory chips in their native operating environment—a test the Harrington device cannot conduct.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,837,764, issued to Russello in 1989, discloses “an apparatus and method for testing the condition of computer peripherals.” This device, however, is limited in scope to the testing of computer peripherals such as printers and modems: It makes no provision for the testing of internal PC components. This device is not portable. This device makes no provision for upgrading to new technologies—and indeed, the technologies around which this device is built are now obsolete, meaning that this device would not function with any PC peripheral sold today. Furthermore, the Russello device relies upon a series of diagnostic cards, which cards need to be written with diagnostic routines suitable for each individual peripheral under test. This solution is impracticable: To have on hand a diagnostic card appropriate for every peripheral type known in the art would be not just unnecessarily cumbersome, but virtually impossible.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,357,519, issued to Martin in 1994, discloses “a device and method for diagnosing a faulty computer system without disassembling the system.” These “nonintrusive diagnostics of a computer system” allow the end user to connect the Martin device to the externally accessible ports of a malfunctioning PC, whereupon the device will execute a series of test routines, and report back to the end user any errors in the PC's hardware it finds. Since PCs are built in many different configurations, the device operates via a series of removable ROM packs and port packs: The user inserts the appropriate ROM pack, which contains the appropriate test routines for the particular PC under test, and the appropriate port pack, which replicates the port configuration on the particular PC under test. Thus, the Martin device allows an end user with little training to diagnose PC problems accurately, without ever needing to access the interior of the PC under test.
As with the Russello device, the Martin device relies upon a series of removable ROM packs and port packs, requiring the end user to have on hand two accessory packs for each computer to be tested; if these packs are not present, the device cannot function. These packs are cumbersome, and they call into question the Martin device's claim to portability: Although the device itself may be portable, the end user must also carry a potentially very large number of ROM and port packs. Furthermore, the Martin device makes no provision for replicating a malfunctioning PC's faulty components. While it uses its own components to compensate for the missing functionality of faulty components, it runs its own software-based test routines, rather than enabling the PC under test to load into its normal operating environment. Thus, the end user cannot assess the condition of a PC's software configuration, nor can he retrieve data from a malfunctioning PC, using the Martin device.
Most importantly, however, the Martin device's diagnostic method is irreparably obsolete: It simply would not function with today's technology. Many of its diagnostic subroutines rely upon accessing the Test Manager diagnostic program stored in the boot ROMs of the Macintosh computers of this device's era. But Macintosh computers no longer make use of boot ROMs, and Windows-platform PCs never did. The Martin device would not function on any PC manufactured today. Moreover, even when the Macintosh's boot ROM system was state-of-the-art, this device could make no claim to universality: The Macintosh never enjoyed much market support; this device would function on, at best, one machine in ten. A computer testing device that cannot test Windows-based PCs isn't of much practical value.
In summary, investigation of these disclosed devices illustrates that presently, there is no single device known in the art that meets the requirements of a field service technician as nothing in the prior art discloses a portable integrated tester which allows the user to check a variety of component and functionality.